Well then this article is flawed from the get go. The minimum “living wage” for a individual is the minimum living wage for 2 people divided by 2. If a individual wants to live on their own then that is above the minimum.
I agree that this article is flawed, though it seems to be aiming for “click bait fun” rather than “expert financial advice”. So I think your expectations might be flawed.
Furthermore, speaking of the “minimum living wage”, I think this FDR quote is relevant:
and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
With that in mind, I don’t agree with your assertion that wanting to live alone constitutes more than the minimum expectation a person should have for a decent living.
those are 2 different things. minimum is bare minimum, I could argue living in your car, or in a box under the bridge is minimum. “Decent” would be something closer to “moderate” which is something closer to what these numbers represent. Living alone on 1 income certainly is decent, but it’s far above minimum.
Minimum and decent are two different things, but I’m not sure how that is relevant?
Given that I specified my (and FDR’s) belief the minimum wage should be a decentlivingwage, and not the bare minimum subsistence level, I clearly wasn’t talking about “two different things”, I was talking about a single concept.
That the minimum wage should afford full time workers a decent living. And that the ability to afford living alone is not an unreasonable ask by that yardstick.
Actually, the article is titled “The Salary a Single Person Needs to Get By in Every U.S. State”. And they go on to define their meaning of “getting by” as:
the minimum amount a single person would need to follow the 50/30/20 budget, using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Following this outline, 50% of income is used to cover necessities, such as housing and utility costs, 30% goes toward discretionary spending, and 20% is left for savings or investments.
So they really mean what they said, and I still don’t see the relavancy of you putting words in their mouth or using your own definitions. I mean, if you want to have a linguistics debate with them on the acceptable usage of “getting by”, more power to you I guess. But as they have defined their terms, its essentially a strawman argument against a silly for fun article.
Seeing as they defined their terms, your insistence on having a linguistics debate is pointless. If their definition of the nebulous term “getting by” matches your definition of “decent” (another nebulous term), that’s fine so long as what level you are actually discussing is defined. Which they did.
Beyond that, “decent” was never a word they used, it was a term I used quoting FDR in regards to the minimum wage, in regards to you talking about the minimum wage.
So I really don’t see the point you are trying to make.
My point is FDR is wrong. “Decent” is not minimum or getting by. And this article is silly because a single person affording to live alone is far above “getting by”.
Well then this article is flawed from the get go. The minimum “living wage” for a individual is the minimum living wage for 2 people divided by 2. If a individual wants to live on their own then that is above the minimum.
I agree that this article is flawed, though it seems to be aiming for “click bait fun” rather than “expert financial advice”. So I think your expectations might be flawed.
Furthermore, speaking of the “minimum living wage”, I think this FDR quote is relevant:
With that in mind, I don’t agree with your assertion that wanting to live alone constitutes more than the minimum expectation a person should have for a decent living.
those are 2 different things. minimum is bare minimum, I could argue living in your car, or in a box under the bridge is minimum. “Decent” would be something closer to “moderate” which is something closer to what these numbers represent. Living alone on 1 income certainly is decent, but it’s far above minimum.
Minimum and decent are two different things, but I’m not sure how that is relevant?
Given that I specified my (and FDR’s) belief the minimum wage should be a decent living wage, and not the bare minimum subsistence level, I clearly wasn’t talking about “two different things”, I was talking about a single concept.
That the minimum wage should afford full time workers a decent living. And that the ability to afford living alone is not an unreasonable ask by that yardstick.
It’s relevant because this article is titled “Minimum” but they mean median, or moderate or “decent”. The minimum is always zero wages.
Actually, the article is titled “The Salary a Single Person Needs to Get By in Every U.S. State”. And they go on to define their meaning of “getting by” as:
So they really mean what they said, and I still don’t see the relavancy of you putting words in their mouth or using your own definitions. I mean, if you want to have a linguistics debate with them on the acceptable usage of “getting by”, more power to you I guess. But as they have defined their terms, its essentially a strawman argument against a silly for fun article.
You’re right, “get by” not “Decent”.
Seeing as they defined their terms, your insistence on having a linguistics debate is pointless. If their definition of the nebulous term “getting by” matches your definition of “decent” (another nebulous term), that’s fine so long as what level you are actually discussing is defined. Which they did.
Beyond that, “decent” was never a word they used, it was a term I used quoting FDR in regards to the minimum wage, in regards to you talking about the minimum wage.
So I really don’t see the point you are trying to make.
My point is FDR is wrong. “Decent” is not minimum or getting by. And this article is silly because a single person affording to live alone is far above “getting by”.